User talk:Antandrus

Greetings, welcome to my talk page. Please leave me new messages at the bottom of the page. I usually notice messages soon. If I think it is important to keep a thread together I will respond here; otherwise I may respond on your talk page. Or maybe both. A foolish hobgoblin little minds consistency.

Tuolumne River, Yosemite National Park, California, July 2008. Mount Dana and Mount Gibbs in the distance.
Haec dies quam fecit Dominus. Exultemus et laetemur in ea.

Talk page archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

Thank you

I followed that link, it was wierd. Thanks for clearing it from my talk page. How did you notice it? Alastair Haines (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a vandal/spambot, which harvests open proxies and then tries to add a disguised link to the page it is spamming. Right now they all have the edit summary "R9v" and I've been rolling them all back, and blocking the proxies. We've had this sort of thing a bunch before. Antandrus (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Man, I hope this doesn't cost you a lot of time. It's not fair to be restricted to manual tools to fight bots. I'm cool with copping a bit of spam to keep Wiki open for people who don't want to register, but I'm not so cool if that takes generous people giving a lot of time they could spend on other things. I'm sure everyone's working this out, but I still reckon you're a hero, I could easily have slept throught the whole thing and never know it had happened. :) Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! No cost. It's early in the morning where I am, I have a cup of coffee and a laptop, and thought I'd start the day by looking at recent changes for a few minutes before I get to my usual round of writing about composers dead for five hundred years, or obscure treatises in languages no one can read. I leave bot-writing for those inclined, of which there are many.  :) By the way I enjoyed your user page: it is full of wise commentary and we share many interests. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Antandrus, your user page was still on my watchlist today, so I checked to see why we interacted. I had a glance through your own comments about Wikipedia. I share your love of the project, possibly for some similar reasons.

I'm dropping this note because I'm involved in a difficulty, which I believe ultimately comes down to unspoken personal motivations. I could be wrong, but there are things about my user page that would raise objections in the hearts of some people. That's fine, so long as it doesn't lead to interfering with co-operative editing.

I find myself in need of a level-headed administrator with generosity, discernment, patience and courage. Those things are easily said. You've volunteered to get involved in messes to clean them up. That's a generous contribution to the project if it is done properly, because it is often time consuming getting a real grip on people and topics outside one's normal comfort zone. But from what I can see, you make a point of living up to your promise of assisting the project, committing a portion of your time to helping others get on with the job, as indeed others have given us the opportunity to do something both worthwhile and enjoyable.

What I need is someone who is not worried about advancing their own personal status at Wikipedia and hence not concerned about votes, majorities and perceptions. What I need is an encyclopedist who understands how people work in any community, and is willing to defend the foundational principles of Wikipedia in as gracious a manner as possible.

To be very honest, I need someone other than myself, and someone who doesn't know me, to broadly address matters that others have been unwilling to address. One reason I feel comfortable asking for your help is because I see your committment to investing time in resolving issues. My experience of calls for outside parties to be involved has so far been bad, those who've responded haven't made time to think through what is going on.

I'm being honest, I'm not neutral about what is going on. Most of my Wiki friends are too gentle-hearted to get involved in a discussion that pulls no punches. I need someone tough enough not to be surpised by the environment, but neutral enough not become personally involved, but to simply point out simple facts.

So I'm not looking for a mediator or neutral party (I don't think one "side" will ever "kiss and make up"), but someone who is willing (to be fair) to explain to me where I (and others) are wrong, or alternatively to explain things to the other "side".

Please feel free to decline my request with my admiration for your work completely unsullied. If you accept, but find you change your mind about being involved, again, please feel free to opt out. It may take me a while to find another administrator I can trust, but I'm quite sure there are many--it might not happen overnight, but it will happen.

I do hope you are not now regretting helping me out after a spam bot post at my talk page! Alastair Haines (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to offer a third opinion, if that's what you'd like. Without looking into the background of this (resisting the temptation to click on your contributions link and "figure it out"), my general advice, in editing conflict situations, would be not to start looking at people's motivations, especially once you've got an emotional investment in whatever is going on, because that clouds the perception. Focus on the article, the readers, verifiability, and neutral point of view. (I love writing about people's motivations, like I have on my nasty little observations page, but those only hit the target when I'm not an involved party.)

As of "advancing my personal status", I doubt if many of the current very active noticeboard addicts even know who I am; most of my heavy anti-vandal and anti-troll activity was between 2005 and early 2007: now I mainly write, and wipe graffiti off of my watchlist. I have no interest in rising in the Lilliputian world of Wikipolitics. It's really just a website. The articles are important, because of their Google rank, and because people really do come to them for accurate information: but the site's divisions, conflicts, processes, and politics have largely become a distraction and obsession for those who cannot write articles, as doing so has become so much more difficult in the last few years. But that's just my opinion. If you really want to find people who obsess over Wikipolitics, go to Wikipedia Review, and study the writings of those who make the most strident claims that they do not care. Antandrus (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What an excellent reply. As it turns out, I completely agree with you about motives, people are complex and making claims about other's motives in talk page discussions has very limited value in my opinion also. I've shared a general kind of guess I've made merely to be honest, not to sway you.

I so appreciate your not checking my contrib history, it only proves further you are the sort of person I was trusting you to be. LOL, I'm guessing about your motives, but at least we're not arguing ... yet! ;)

OK, here goes, I hate to launch you at this talk page full of heat without light, but I'm not exaggerating to say someone special is needed to help out here.

Please help at Talk:Gender of God. I repeat, I'll think no less of you for declining the request.

Also, if you'd prefer to advise me rather than engage at the talk itself, I'll be listening, though not promising to agree.

You're a champion, even if you end up backing the "other side".

Cheers, Alastair Haines (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a look when I have some time (i.e. not at work ... so be patient ...) I will also start by reading the article; once I have a general feeling about how it reads, and what its NPOV and sourcing status is, then I will look at the talk page. I have found that it is way too easy to get involved in personality clashes and start taking sides even without realizing you are doing so, if you don't look at the content in dispute first. Conversely (obversely?) if you are involved in one, sometimes it is helpful to consider what it would look like to a completely uninvested outsider. Have you ever encountered a talk page comment you once made, wondered "who the heck wrote that" and then seen your own name at the end? It's a little like those experiences of seeing your own reflection in a mirror across the street, and thinking "who on earth is that?" but not knowing it's you at first. Very useful kick of reality. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

211.79.36.249

Just a quick note to say cheers for reverting this edit. I'm always suspicious when soneone parachutes in a link like that, having fallen foul of one shortly before Christmas. Thanks again. TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. The explanation is in the section immediately above. I wish we had a way to block open proxies automatically, since there are many thousands at any given time. Antandrus (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Spelling for Kondrashin

Hi there! Could you please take a gander at Grove and see what they have for spelling his name? The article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiril_Kondrashin) cannot make up its mind...I see at least three versions, without even going through it that closely. Merci! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Spelling for Kondrashin

Hi there! Could you please take a gander at Grove and see what they have for spelling his name? The article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiril_Kondrashin) cannot make up its mind...I see at least three versions, without even going through it that closely. And by the way, does he count as a "Soviet" conductor or a "Russian" one? I suspect that distinction (or lack thereof) arises a good deal around here. Merci! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 18:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Greetings! They have Kondrashin, Kirill (Petrovich) -- double ll on Kirill. The article is by Russians -- I.M. Yampol′sky and Victor Ledin. As of "Russian" versus "Soviet", Grove has "Russian" (they tend to identify by the more traditional nationality). Antandrus (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I see our article has "Кирилл Петрович Кондрашин", which would be the first time I've ever seen a Russian named Кирил employ a double л. However, the Russian language article also uses Кирилл, so it seems this is how he really spelled his name - and this is supported by his entry in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (I can't link it because of a spam filter, but you can access it from the Russian article @ Примечания). Hence, the only correct romanization would be Kirill. Except, most English language sources refer to him as Kiril. Odd. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Simon Bar Jona Madelka

Hello Antandrus. Thank you for a bit of copyediting of my imperfect English in this article. Have a good day! --Vejvančický (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome -- thank you for writing it! Let me know if you want me to look at other articles on composers. There are still a number of Czech composers of the Renaissance that need to be written, for example Trojan Turnovský and Jiří Rychnovský. I see someone has already gotten to Alessandro Orologio, a foreigner who worked in Prague. Also feel free to add to Kryštof Harant if you have a good source in Czech (I wrote the article more than four years ago now). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

strange revert

this, [1] was odd, I was actually trying to revert the IP, and apparently we both edited at the same time, and yet no edit conflict came up--Jac16888^Talk 04:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've had that happen too. Not all that often, but it's happened. Usually it is when an edit creates or removes a section from a large page (like a noticeboard) at the same time as another editor changes a different section: but I think an edit that completely blanks a page can also sidestep the edit-conflict warning (not sure, just guessing). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Mozart recordings

Hi! I hate to be a pain, but I told Brianboulton that I'd try to get some early works by Mozart to illustrate Mozart family Grand Tour and Mozart in Italy. There are a few piano compositions from the periods in question, and, well, I was wondering if you'd be able and willing to help out with recordings?

Thank you either way,

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, in the five years I've been here, I've never contributed a sound file. Not once. I think I did a midi file or two to illustrate something but never an actual recording. I presume you mean something self-recorded rather than a found-sound that is freely licensed? -- It's not as easy as it sounds; to polish a performance of a Mozart piece might be more difficult than writing a featured article. Let me think about it, but I doubt it -- I don't think I can play Mozart up to my own performance standards in a place as public as this; I'd probably record something and then decide it wasn't good enough. Antandrus (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Only as an aside, I've always thought Mozart sounds much more thrilling on the instruments he wrote for, which were not the same as we have today. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, absolutely. I think I have some convincing samples of fortepianos on my gadget-rack, ... but then again, Mozart didn't write for digital samples in a gadget-rack exactly .... Antandrus (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, yes, something tells me he would've gone down other paths with a Radias. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, missed the reply for a little bit. That's fine. Just that Idid promise to trry and find recordigns, and not contacting known Wikipedian pianists would be a bit of dereliction in that duty =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Just passing through...

...but I couldn't help noticing this:

"I have no interest in rising in the Lilliputian world of Wikipolitics. It's really just a website. The articles are important, because of their Google rank, and because people really do come to them for accurate information: but the site's divisions, conflicts, processes, and politics have largely become a distraction and obsession for those who cannot write articles, as doing so has become so much more difficult in the last few years. But that's just my opinion. If you really want to find people who obsess over Wikipolitics, go to Wikipedia Review, and study the writings of those who make the most strident claims that they do not care."

Heh heh. Wise words as usual. I've never been into Wikipolitics much, but pay the most innocuous visit to ANI and you seem to end up being sucked into The Drama. My New Year's Resolution is to avoid such hotbeds of histrionics at all costs. Of course, there are plenty of fights on Wikipedia which are worth getting a black eye over, but they're related to content rather than personal feuding so most of our brightest "stars" avoid them. Now I'm back to creating and improving articles in a big way, I'm enjoying this place a lot more. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and amen -- and "hotbeds of histrionics" is a nice alliterative phrase, in addition to being accurate. Yes, about a year ago I thought I was very close to burnout, but now that I've de-watchlisted the Drama Zones, and gone back to writing (mostly), I look forward to logging on in my free time rather than dreading it. Might take on Palestrina next. It's increasingly clear to me that a lot of people, -- unfortunately, many of them admins -- are here for the drama, and nothing else is much fun to them. The drama is not only entertaining, it's addicting. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"It's addicting" - and there are a lot of junkies around. I'm also planning to experiment by reducing the amount of Wiki-jargon I use, e.g. using "impolite", "discourteous" or just plain "rude" rather than the ubiquitous "incivil" (sic). "Biased" is clearer English than "POV" too. If people don't get what policies these words refer to then what do they understand? --Folantin (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yeah -- slide on over to WP:WIKISPEAK. I bet you'll enjoy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Tanertan" accuses Wikipedia of telling lies

Ya well calling people vandals for taking the time and trouble to edit some lies out of your encyclopedia is way worse than calling people "crackwhore" with good reason. I don't want wikipedia or any other organisation committed to objective research and reasoning to regurtitate this urban American myth about live subjects landing on the moon in the 60s and such. That sort of thing never happened on this solar system. If such a technology existed once upon a time why can't we re-utilise it and send something to the moon nowadays and acquire video evidence of this that does not look like some blurry out-takes from a crappy 70s sci-fi flick?? All these crappy videos NASA has to show for the Appaller moon landings nowadays constitutes proof positive to the better initiated players of this game that the whole thing was as fake as it gets.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tanertan" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanertan (talk • contribs)

Look, NASA is a major source of our funding. Do you seriously think we'd jeopardize that? Wouldn't you keep quiet if they were paying you? We get paid pretty well, you know. You don't think we'd put up with this abuse for free, do you? Antandrus (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Wikimedia Foundation" is even an anagram of "I aid, I wink at, moon feud". It's obvious, once you see it. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh... and some folks say William Shatner isn't holding a ray gun in this picture, or even a prop, but only a folded-up microphone stand. Oh. Tee hee, it is William Shatner holding a folded-up microphone stand. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A microphone? That's even more dangerous than if he was holding a gun. You've heard his mellifluous interpretation of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds," of course? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have, and for the love of all that's holy that's an earworm I don't need this early in the morning. Oy veh. Antandrus (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You know acquiring a brand new IP address and getting around your so-called "blox" is merely the flick of a switch away from me. More to the point, the real ellusive scientific question here is: why are you maniax so deeply offended by Apollo having been proven to be a hoax in our lifetimes?? What is there in it for you to reprise this Armstrong/Aldrin lie endlessly?? Those two are dead men walking that's for sure. Why do you have to join them? --58.170.96.179 (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we didn't go to Mars either. And those pictures of Neptune are just bubbles in a lava lamp. Now shut up because I want my check from NASA and you're getting attention from several agencies that are too secret even to have acronyms. Antandrus (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Cookie!

Maddie! has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Maddie talk 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

41.248.140.160

I believe you will find that 41.248.140.160 is another sock puppet of banned user User:Historian19. Why do I think this? Editing the same articles and inserting the same content that Historian19 and identified socks did. Thanks. Hmains (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Greetings -- you will see I already figured this out. It wasn't hard (just a few clicks in article histories). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

VANDALISM AND CENSORSHIP

My source had a NASA DOCUMENT THAT WAS SIGNED IN FRONT OF IT. SOURCES 65 and others ARE YOUTUBE SOURCES! Why don't you go bother them about that? Stop the hypocricy; create a talk page. Sfvace (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

So this is what is has come to; answering a question with a question and IGNORING? My source had a NASA DOCUMENT THAT WAS SIGNED IN FRONT OF IT.

AND AGAIN, let's pretend that is not enough. SOURCES 65 and others ARE YOUTUBE SOURCES! Why don't you go bother them about that???? Stop the hypocricy; create a talk page, leave an answer, but stop the edit war and stop pushing your POV and censoring the truth already. Sfvace (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

When I hear the word "truth", I reach for my "block" button. Be warned. You have been edit-warring, and you are stubbornly refusing to read the policies I have linked. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It never fails -- the credibility of an editor's points varies inversely with the TYPOGRAPHICAL EXUBERANCE with which those points are expressed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I do believe you are on to something there. There is a very strong correlation indeed. Squared by use of the word "truth" and cubed by "censorship." Antandrus (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

THIS IS HYPOCRACY AND A VIOLATION OF ALL THAT IS SACRED! STOP CENSORSHIP AND TAKE A STAND FOR THE TRUTH! I'VE ALREADY LISTED 43 YOUTUBE SOURCES FROM ALL THE TELEVISION NETWORKS! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU??? Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Move request

Could you move Les Nuits d'été back to Les nuits d'été over the redirect. The latter is simply the system of ‎French capitalisation we have chosen to use (at Project:Opera at least - I'm sure it applies to classical music too.) New user is going round making these changes to many pages. While the alternative spelling they use is acceptable, all these moves are going to cause chaos on Wikipedia. Might be advisable to have a word with them about it. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. I completely agree -- caps in French make my eyes hurt. I capitalise that way as well for titles, both for article titles and within the text. I suspect there is a fair amount of inconsistency within Wikipedia though. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure there is - but it's not really our problem. We capitalise that way in the opera articles because that's how Grove and other reliable sources do it. The other method is of such Byzantine complexity it's best avoided. There's a very thorough (and very tedious) discussion of all this in the archives of WikiProject:Opera somewhere. On the other hand, just as bad are the people who insist on translating all foreign titles into English. I believe Project:Novels is one of the worst offenders. I expect they'll be moving Les misérables to The Glums any day now. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed -- and we can see Così fan tutte moved to "They're all that way" or whatever the heck it means. LOL. Nothing wrong with a little inconsistency. (Conversely, -- or is it obversely? -- does French Wikipedia de-capitalise English words in titles, e.g. A child of our time just because that would be the way they would do it in French? An no, they don't -- they allow the English capitalisation rule -- they de-cap when they translate it to un enfant de notre temps. Sensible.) Antandrus (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Me again

Could you semi-protect Domenico Mazzocchi? Some Spanish schoolkid has been vandalising the article today using various IPs. The main one is blocked but he's returned in sock form at least twice. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sorry, only sporadically checking my watchlist today. Come to think of it, that composer article could use some significant expansion. Antandrus (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I created the article on his opera La catena d'Adone but I've never really worked on his bio. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Marysville

Thanks for your note. Some information of gazetting of names in Victoria can be found here, the Murrindindi map shows the boundaries of Marysville. The Shire of Murrinindi (the local government area) refers to Marysville as a township [2]. Melburnian (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I figured it was roughly similar to the way it is in the U.S. but with different terminology: you can't abolish a town here without a vote to deincorporate and a number of other legal procedures. By the way, the complaint incredibly has made its way to the public whipping post. Antandrus (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The User:VivaNorthCyprus socks

Since you, like me, have been actively blocking these prolifically generated socks, I thought you might like to consider and comment on my suggestion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VivaNorthCyprus that this user be considered under a community ban in accordance with WP:BAN. I know this is a bit of a technicality, but another admin, User:C.Fred has questioned the line between considering this puppeteer blocked vs. banned (and thus using CSD G5 as a basis for deleting the material this puppeteer creates). By having the discussion at the sock investigation, it will allow, if all agree, this person to be listed as actually banned. Thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks for your help with that one. What astonishes me the most is how stupid he thinks we are -- that we'll buy the idea he's more than one person. All one has to do is look at a spectacular history like this one, and compare the style of his rants with the latest. Antandrus (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup. If you want to see a detailed analysis of this person's patterns (btw, I'm thinking this user is actually female), check this out. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL, that's impressive! I had just reached the point where I could identify the person whenever (s)he showed up on recent changes, based on stylistic features; you've pretty much got them all. I don't suppose that (s)he has noticed that my user name is a place in Asia Minor -- settled by Greeks (shh! don't tell) Antandrus (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Rez88

Single purpose account almost solely dedicated to removing the image on Giovanni Boccaccio for no rhyme or reason. Attempts to communicate with this editor have proved fruitless. Time to pull the plug? Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's very strange. It's not like it's an image of Muhammad, unless some cult has decided Boccaccio is his reincarnation. (I wish. I could use a chuckle today.) I left the user a note and put Boccaccio on my watchlist. Antandrus (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no idea what this is about either. Maybe it's a belated Byzantine Iconoclast. --Folantin (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

warning template

I issued a warning to a user who made an edit that consisted only of removing 10 references and nothing else. If he wants to be constructive he should attempt to reword, or try to do something rather than remove content. Removing references is none of the actions that I would consider benign. It doesn't mean I was looking to get anyone blocked or labeled as a vandal, I just wanted for this user to pay attention so he would know that he made a mistake and hopefully in the future he will make constructive rather than destructive edits. If he couldn't contribute to the article, if the only action he came up with at that moment was to hit the delete button ten times, then he should have refrained from making that edit. That's all. Hopefully this clears my position. And regarding that essay, this part sums up my view "They may also simply be trying to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template." plus if I post the official template that correlates to the event it's better than if I only claimed the user did something wrong in my opinion. Too many claims and too little sources sometimes destroy Wikipedia articles.--Avala (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Avala -- perhaps you misunderstand. It wasn't the references we objected to (or me, anyway -- I can't read Melburnian's mind -- but I suspect his rationale was similar to mine): it was the change of "is a town" to "was a town", which is HUGE, and inaccurate, since the town charter/articles of incorporation/legal status has not changed. In cases of revert-wars I would suggest talking with people politely using your own words rather than dropping templates; the probability of a achieving a mutually-agreeable outcome is much, much greater in that case, since warning templates are universally perceived as insulting, by experienced users, and insults always push disagreeing sides farther apart.

As a side note, do we really need eleven cites on a single line? That must be close to a Wikipedia record. One or two, for the way the opening line of Marysville, Victoria is currently worded, would be fine. What the article really needs, by the way, is some expansion of detail from those other cites. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I didn't see those templates as insults before so I suppose that was a misunderstanding. Regarding those references, no absolutely not we don't need that many. The reason why I put them was because initially some users said that the devastation was a journalist exaggeration. So I added many sources to show them that the news report is verifiable. It is undoubtedly hard to accept such news but if all papers wrote about it in the same manner then there is very little room for us to say different while abiding to WP:OR.--Avala (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Systems Development Life Cycle

Hi there! I'd be glad if you had a moment to take a gander at this entry to see if my edits make sense. Hoping you are well. Merci! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 16:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice job -- looks good -- you've cleaned it up a bit and the writing is much improved now. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

RE:Library

Will do! I can't claim credit for the whole thing; User:Narson came up with the idea, I just acted on it. I'm trying to decide whether I should keep it in userspace or move it to Wikipedia:Library or something; your thoughts? Ironholds (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism, Bias, and Abuse of Power

Wow your good at ignoring and repeating stuff that isn't needed to be. Did YOU read that section you sent? No where does it say it's ok for anyone to block me without warning... Did you also ban the user who started the edit war? Better yet, did you block the user and delete the entry where the user sourced an entry, on the same moon hoax page, using a YOUTUBE video as the source? No? No wonder people critisize wikipedia. Sfvace (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)